Uchtdorf On Grace

[bluebell]

Some of you may not think that President Uchtdorf was saying anything new, but HE sure thought so:

"However, I wonder if sometimes we misinterpret the phrase “after all we can do.” We must understand that “after” does not equal “because.”"

To be clear, when he says, "I wonder," he isn't REALLY wondering. It's a rhetorical device -- a kind way of saying, "You've got it all wrong, you big dummies!"

At least, in HIS mind, he was giving an important clarification of doctrine that he thought many would consider "new." In fact, here's how he closed the talk:

"I pray that we will see with NEW eyes and a NEW heart the eternal significance of the Savior’s atoning sacrifice ..."

Perhaps, what he was saying was "old hat" to the Scriptorian class, but he seems to think that some of us commoners would receive a new understanding of grace.

 

I don't think he believed he was saying anything new, so much as he knew that he was teaching Grace in a way that not everyone was used to hearing it.  I think this was one of those 'eyes to see and ears to hear' moments, where people have gotten so used to looking at grace in a very specific way that Uchtdorf wanted to make sure we were all really grasping what he was saying and not just listening on autopilot.

 

I've heard this way of teaching grace quite a few times in different church books, and it's how i've thought about salvation and grace for many years, but it definitely was the first time i'd heard it spoken in such terms at GC, which was really awesome.

[Dando]

  Exaltation is an entirely different issue.

 

If Exaltation and Salvation are entirely different issues, they should be talked about in entirely different ways.

[JLHPROF]

If Exaltation and Salvation are entirely different issues, they should be talked about in entirely different ways.

 

They are.  Both in scripture and by the prophets.  The only time they are used interchangeably is when "fulness of salvation" is used for exaltation, because they are the same thing.

[Vance]

This is a classic Evangelical error based upon misunderstanding/misinterpreting of scripture.

Grace is a free gift that is given without merit. By definition it can't be earned.  Grace is opposed to earning but not effort.

 

I think Ephesians 2:8-10 expresses the correct understanding of grace and obedience:

 

⁸ For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— ⁹ not by works, so that no one can boast. ¹⁰ For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
 

 

Grace is a gift, that part is true, but the "that is given without merit" is unsupportable for at least two reasons based on the correct understanding of scripture.

 

1) The "works" that Paul often refers to is the works of the Law of Moses, not the works of (or obedience to) the law of Christ or the law of the Gospel of Christ.  Evangelical don't seem to grasp the fact that Paul was attacking the arguments of the Judizers with his statements against "works".  Paul argues that the Gospel of Christ and the commandments preceded the Law of Moses because both Abraham and Moses had the Gospel of Christ, but due to the rejection of the Gospel by the children of Israel they were given the lesser law in the Law of Moses. Abraham was saved without the works of the law of Moses because he was obedient to the commandments of God in the law of the Gospel of Christ BEFORE the law of Moses existed.

 

2)  15 ¶ John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.

  16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.

  17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

 

How can you receive a "a free gift that is given without merit" in exchange for "a free gift that is given without merit"?

Logically you can't.  So John's usage of "grace" decimates your definition of grace and demonstrates that is unsupported by scripture.

 

Oh, and sorry but the "and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God" doesn't preclude that it is can't be given in exchange for certain behavior on our part.  Just because a gift is given in exchange for a behavior doesn't require that the value of the behavior is equivalent of the value of the gift.

 

Uchtdorf's talk lined up with this perfectly. Salvation is a free gift of God.

True. Free in that it is available to all, not that it is free from requirements.

 

Because we are saved we do good works.

Nope!  We do good works because we love God and want to please Him.  Sorry to break it to you, but salvation comes AFTER this life, at least according to what Jesus taught.

Matt 24: 13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

Mark 13:13 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

Edited April 9, 2015 by Vance

[mormonnewb]

I don't think he believed he was saying anything new, so much as he knew that he was teaching Grace in a way that not everyone was used to hearing it.  I think this was one of those 'eyes to see and ears to hear' moments, where people have gotten so used to looking at grace in a very specific way that Uchtdorf wanted to make sure we were all really grasping what he was saying and not just listening on autopilot.

 

I've heard this way of teaching grace quite a few times in different church books, and it's how i've thought about salvation and grace for many years, but it definitely was the first time i'd heard it spoken in such terms at GC, which was really awesome.

 

From the comments in this thread, it seems clear that Uchtdorf's statements on grace were not novel or somehow foreign to Mormon doctrine.   That being said, Pres. Uchtdorf seems to think that grace is not universally understood in this way by many church members.  I agree.  During SS and EQ, I will occasionally hear a member mock the Protestant view of grace as being a license to sin.  I've tried to explain that the Protestants view works as an expression of gratitude for salvation (as opposed to a pre-condition for salvation).  So, at the very least, I'm glad that Pres. Uchtdorf has cleared up the confusion on that point.

[mormonnewb]

Not at all.  Only baptism is necessary for salvation in the Celestial Kingdom.  Exaltation is an entirely different issue.

 

So it's possible to be in the CK and NOT be exalted?

[JLHPROF]

So it's possible to be in the CK and NOT be exalted?

 

Yes.  Absolutely.

D&C 132

16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.

17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.

Edited April 9, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Russell C McGregor]

So it's possible to be in the CK and NOT be exalted?

Oh yes. All of the work of the Church relates to the Celestial Kingdom, beginning with baptism, which is the gate. The baptised who keep their covenants will be saved in the Celestial Kingdom. Exaltation is for married couples (men and women, of course) whose marriages are sealed in the Temple -- and who, likewise, keep their covenants.

Regards,

Russell

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

If Exaltation and Salvation are entirely different issues, they should be talked about in entirely different ways.

Salvation is being with God. Exaltation is receiving all that God has. They are talked about differently. But why shoot for something less than the best. That is why in LDS thought exaltation is the same as salvation.

 

The other thing to consider is the degree in which some one is damned or saved. Exaltation is 100% salvation. So in that sense it works. Outer darkness is 100% damnation. The other kingdoms are a percentage of both (salvation or damnation).

Edited April 9, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[JLHPROF]

Salvation is being with God. Exaltation is receiving all that God has. They are talked about differently. But why shoot for something less than the best. That is why in LDS thought exaltation is the same as salvation.

 

The other thing to consider is the degree in which some one is damned or saved. Exaltation is 100% salvation. So in that sense it works. Outer darkness is 100% damnation. The other kingdoms are a percentage of both (salvation or damnation).

 

Almost agree but salvation isn't being with God.  Salvation is being resurrected, be it Telestial, Terrestrial, or Celestial.  And only Celestial get to be with God.

But I agree with everything else.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Almost agree but salvation isn't being with God.  Salvation is being resurrected, be it Telestial, Terrestrial, or Celestial.  And only Celestial get to be with God.

But I agree with everything else.

Well, all things are physical as well as spiritual. Remember that the 2nd death is living out side of God's presence. Physical salvation is the resurrection. So spiritual salvation is living with God.

Edited April 9, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[bluebell]

From the comments in this thread, it seems clear that Uchtdorf's statements on grace were not novel or somehow foreign to Mormon doctrine.   That being said, Pres. Uchtdorf seems to think that grace is not universally understood in this way by many church members.  I agree.  During SS and EQ, I will occasionally hear a member mock the Protestant view of grace as being a license to sin.  I've tried to explain that the Protestants view works as an expression of gratitude for salvation (as opposed to a pre-condition for salvation).  So, at the very least, I'm glad that Pres. Uchtdorf has cleared up the confusion on that point.

 

I agree with you that i think Uchtdorf is trying to clear up confusion, a lot of which does come from teachings that we hear in church.

[Tacenda]

Yes. Absolutely.

D&C 132

16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.

17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.

Well, isn't that great. So what do single people get to look forward to? Being someone's servant? Which is probably false, and think angels help those on earth, sounds like a good gig to me.

Even Pres. Hinckley said polygamy wasn't doctrinal. Yet if someone says they don't believe in it they could be called into a church disciplinary court. This is what might happen to Kirk & Lindsay Van Allen because Kirk put on his blog that he didn't believe it was doctrinal. I listened to the MS podcast with them. Is that what we go by in the church? Section 132, or Christ's atonement? Which is it? Where in the bible does it say that we'll be upper case "g" Gods?

[JLHPROF]

Well, isn't that great. So what do single people get to look forward to? Being someone's servant? Which is probably false, and think angels help those on earth, sounds like a good gig to me.

Even Pres. Hinckley said polygamy wasn't doctrinal. Yet if someone says they don't believe in it they could be called into a church disciplinary court. This is what might happen to Kirk & Lindsay Van Allen because Kirk put on his blog that he didn't believe it was doctrinal. I listened to the MS podcast with them. Is that what we go by in the church? Section 132, or Christ's atonement? Which is it? Where in the bible does it say that we'll be upper case "g" Gods?

 

Wow, this really is a major issue for you isn't it.  Even to the point of ignoring modern revelation and going "Bible thumper".

Single people will have the choice between receiving a sealing into an eternal family or staying a servant.  They will get whichever they want.

 

I'm not even going to try and convince you that D&C 132 came from God.  Honestly, I'm tired of having that debate with doubting members.  God authorized polygamy.  God is a polygamist.  Christ is a polygamist.  Almost all of Gods prophets have been polygamists.  Polygamy is the way the Gods live.  Those of us who are living in the day when polygamy has been revoked will be given the future opportunity to live that law.  Polyandry was perfectly fine because the women weren't married to their other husbands for eternity, just to one man, Joseph. There is no eternal polyandry.  And yes, a sealing IS a marriage.

 

I accept EVERY revelation given to the prophet Joseph Smith as coming directly from God and I accept every teaching from Joseph too, canonized or not.

If members of the Church don't want to believe that's their business, but Mormonism includes polygamy and always will.  It came from God.  It existed before the foundation of the world.  It has existed on every earth and in every Celestial Kingdom.    It will come to the earth again.  It will be commonplace in the Celestial Kingdom.  If it troubles people here that's because of false mortal traditions they can't get past.

 

Those are my opinions.  Can't be proven so don't bother with CFR.  But that's the way it is and I KNOW that my beliefs will be proven correct.  /rant

Edited April 10, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Tacenda]

Wow, this really is a major issue for you isn't it. Even to the point of ignoring modern revelation and going "Bible thumper".

And Jesus lover.

I know it is quite a stumbling block. I don't know how we can be all about family and yet be separated from those in our family in the hereafter through OT type laws like some in our church. Are we a NT church or OT? Which is it? Others in other faiths atleast know they'll be with their loved ones.

[JLHPROF]

Are we a NT church or OT? Which is it?

 

The gospel has never changed in all eternity.  This is a false separation.  Those in the OT were under the same gospel as in the NT and as in our day.

[Kenngo1969]

... Reread the Miracle of Forgiveness for yourself and if you're honest with yourself you'll see President Kimball focused on God's wonderful mercy, not just on His strict justice. ...

It's been forever since I've read The Miracle of Forgiveness, but as I remember, one half of the book is hellfire and damnation, and the other half is mercy, atonement, forgiveness, et cetera.  I think the problem is that most people only read the first part of the book.  

[Kenngo1969]

... Even Pres. Hinckley said polygamy wasn't doctrinal. ...

CFR!

[JLHPROF]

CFR!

 

She's referring to this: http://mormonhomeevening.blogspot.com/2008/02/mormon-prophet-hinckley-claims-that_04.html

 

Larry King: Now the big story raging in Utah -- before we get back to morals and morality, is -- the big story, if you don't know it, is polygamy in Utah; there's been major charges. The governor, Mike Leavitt, says that there are legal reasons why the state of Utah has not prosecuted alleged polygamists. Leavitt said plural marriage may be protected by the First Amendment. He is the great-great-grandson -- is the governor -- of a polygamist. First tell me about the church and polygamy. When it started it allowed it?

Gordon B. Hinckley: When our people came west they permitted it on a restricted scale.

Larry King: You could have a certain amount of...

Gordon B. Hinckley: The figures I have are from -- between two percent and five percent of our people were involved in it. It was a very limited practice; carefully safeguarded. In 1890, that practice was discontinued. The president of the church, the man who occupied the position which I occupy today, went before the people, said he had, oh, prayed about it, worked on it, and had received from the Lord a revelation that it was time to stop, to discontinue it then. That's 118 years ago. It's behind us.

Larry King: But when the word is mentioned, when you hear the word, you think Mormon, right?

Gordon B. Hinckley: You do it mistakenly. They have no connection with us whatever. They don't belong to the church. There are actually no Mormon fundamentalists.

Larry King: Are you surprised that there's, apparently, a lot of polygamy in Utah?

Gordon B. Hinckley: I have seen the thing grow somewhat. I don't know how much it is. I don't know how pervasive it is.

(skipped two questions)

Larry King: President Hinckley, when the press pays attention to it, it does affect you, certainly, in a public relations sense?

Gordon B. Hinckley: It does, because people mistakenly assume that this church has something to do with it. It has nothing whatever to do with it. It has had nothing to do with it for a very long time. It's outside the realm of our responsibility. These people are not members. Any man or woman who becomes involved in it is excommunicated from the church.

Larry King: Prosecutors in Utah are quoted as saying -- they told "The Salt Lake Tribune" -- that it's difficult to prosecute polygamists because of a lack of evidence; that ex-wives and daughters rarely complain about it. Do you see that as a problem?

Gordon B. Hinckley: Well, it's secretive. There's a certain element of secretiveness about it. I suppose they have some difficulty -- they say they do, in gathering evidence.

Larry King: Should the church be more forceful in speaking out? I mean, you're forceful here tonight, but maybe -- they've been saying that it's rather than just a state matter, encouraging the state to prosecute.

Gordon B. Hinckley: I don't know. We'll consider it.

Larry King: I'm giving you an idea.

Gordon B. Hinckley: Yes.

Larry King: Would you look better if you were...

Gordon B. Hinckley: I don't know that we would or not. As far as I'm concerned, I have nothing to do with it. It belongs to the civil officers of the state.

Larry King: You condemn it.

Gordon B. Hinckley: I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law.

Extra part:

"Gordon B. Hinckley: Let me say that I still believe that right is right, and wrong is wrong. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shall not steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness. These aren't suggestions, these are commandments."

 

As you can see, taken completely out of context.  He was specifically referring to unauthorized fundamentalist polygamy as going against the doctrine of the Church.  Not to polygamy being undoctrinal.  Total false interpretation.

[Tacenda]

CFR!

I guess I didn't read between the lines.

[Rain]

Some of you may not think that President Uchtdorf was saying anything new, but HE sure thought so:

"However, I wonder if sometimes we misinterpret the phrase “after all we can do.” We must understand that “after” does not equal “because.”"

To be clear, when he says, "I wonder," he isn't REALLY wondering. It's a rhetorical device -- a kind way of saying, "You've got it all wrong, you big dummies!"

At least, in HIS mind, he was giving an important clarification of doctrine that he thought many would consider "new." In fact, here's how he closed the talk:

"I pray that we will see with NEW eyes and a NEW heart the eternal significance of the Savior’s atoning sacrifice ..."

Perhaps, what he was saying was "old hat" to the Scriptorian class, but he seems to think that some of us commoners would receive a new understanding of grace.

 

To me this means that some people don't understand it. 

 

When I listened to the talk the first time I thought, "I've got to read and listen to that again" and made a note to do so.   

 

In the mean time I saw this thread pop up and things about it in other places and it seemed that people were talking about how revolutionary it was for someone in our church and I wondered just what I missed.

 

During some personal study time yesterday I was reading some things that reminded me of his talk and so I listened to it.  There were some things, combined with my study that I really needed to hear, but not about what is being discussed in this thread. What surprised me was there was no new doctrine in it, given the reactions of many people.  Some of what he talked about was things I taught to others on my mission 25 years ago.  (And yes, I read Believing Christ and found that not to be new either).   What I have found through the years is that there are many who do understand the idea and many who don't. In general those who understood it seemed to be more at peace.  

 

The only reason it would seem new is that for the first time the way it was said brought understanding of it to some people.  Funny thing is once you get that understanding (of so many things in my personal experience) you start reading through things you have read before and see it was always there - you just missed it.

 

I'm not saying all this to put myself higher than other people.  I have my fair share of not understanding many simple things.  I love that through this talk people have been enlightened and am grateful for the enlightenment I received in conference.

[Antoni]

Some people don't understand Grace, others the Atonement, others Isaiah, others what Jesus meant when he said...

 

This is the VERY reason we have General Conference to learn and increase in understanding.

[Kenngo1969]

Well, isn't that great. So what do single people get to look forward to? Being someone's servant? Which is probably false, and think angels help those on earth, sounds like a good gig to me.

Even Pres. Hinckley said polygamy wasn't doctrinal. Yet if someone says they don't believe in it they could be called into a church disciplinary court. This is what might happen to Kirk & Lindsay Van Allen because Kirk put on his blog that he didn't believe it was doctrinal. I listened to the MS podcast with them. Is that what we go by in the church? Section 132, or Christ's atonement? Which is it? Where in the bible does it say that we'll be upper case "g" Gods?

 

 

CFR!

 

 

She's referring to this: http://mormonhomeevening.blogspot.com/2008/02/mormon-prophet-hinckley-claims-that_04.html

 

As you can see, taken completely out of context.  He was specifically referring to unauthorized fundamentalist polygamy as going against the doctrine of the Church.  Not to polygamy being undoctrinal.  Total false interpretation.

I don't know for certain, but I believe President Hinckley has polygamous ancestors, so it would be curious indeed if he were to denounce the practice as undoctrinal.  I agree with Jacob and with President Hinckley that polygamy, as it is practiced today by apostates, is undoctrinal in the sense of Jacob 2.

[DBMormon]

My initial thought after the talk was, "I wonder if DBMormon ghost wrote that for him?" It was great.

It will sound like boasting but after listening to his talk it is apparent he borrowed from others who have talked on this.  He borrowed heavily from Bro. Wilcox and others.  He combined multiple concepts in way that I have only seen in a few places.  And yes every concept he mentioned and taught and preached is in both my episode on grace and in my powerpoint that I have done for others.  "Salvation is not found in works, not even those revealed of God" - Elder McConkie

 

My guess is Pres Uchtdorf has been heavily influenced by how Robinson, Millet, Wilcox, and Reel frame Grace. I find it odd how many see that and others brush it off as if this theology has always had solid footing in Mormonism.... my point of view?  It has not until recently and only officially last Sunday.

[The Nehor]

It will sound like boasting but after listening to his talk it is apparent he borrowed from others who have talked on this.  He borrowed heavily from Bro. Wilcox and others.  He combined multiple concepts in way that I have only seen in a few places.  And yes every concept he mentioned and taught and preached is in both my episode on grace and in my powerpoint that I have done for others.  "Salvation is not found in works, not even those revealed of God" - Elder McConkie

 

My guess is Pres Uchtdorf has been heavily influenced by how Robinson, Millet, Wilcox, and Reel frame Grace. I find it odd how many see that and others brush it off as if this theology has always had solid footing in Mormonism.... my point of view?  It has not until recently and only officially last Sunday.

 

Yep, that would be boasting.

 

I suspect President Uchtdorf was more influenced by the Holy Ghost in his capacity as a prophet, seer, and revelator then by you and other LDS writers. The similarities are overstated in any case and those writers based their work on the scriptures and the teaching of apostles and prophets which are shockingly the same sources President Uchtdorf quoted.

 

To take another tact if you were truly teaching something original and new never before revealed and now the leaders of the Church are agreeing with you now after the fact once it was shown to them then you have great cause to repent:

 

"And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him." -Alma 12:9

 

"If the Lord Almighty should reveal to a High Priest, or to any other than the head, things that are, or that have been and will be, and show to him the destiny of this people twenty-five years from now, or a new doctrine that will in five, ten, or twenty years hence become the doctrine of this Church and kingdom, but which has not yet been revealed to this people, and reveal it to him by the same Spirit, the same messenger, the same voice, and the same power that gave revelations to Joseph when he was living, it would be a blessing to that High Priest, or individual; but he must rarely divulge it to a second person on the face of the earth, until God reveals it through the proper source to become the property of the people at large. Therefore when you hear Elders, High Priests, Seventies, or the Twelve, (though you cannot catch any of the Twelve there, but you may the High Priests, Seventies, and Elders) say that God does not reveal through the President of the Church that which they know, and tell wonderful things, you may generally set it down as a God's truth that the revelation they have had, is from the devil, and not from God." -Brigham Young

 

If it was just a good way of looking at doctrines already revealed which is what it really was then you are fine. This is what I think of those who wrote those books and possibly you (though I have not read what you wrote so I could be off).